Subdivision Map Act

Subscribe to Subdivision Map Act via RSS

By William W. Abbott

Adjudicating old subdivision maps is becoming more and more like driving the last nail into a coffin: the patient is dead and we are simply down to the final details. Blog readers may remember Revisiting History: When is a Recorded 1915 Map Not a Subdivision Map?, which reviewed the holding in Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543, a case in which the First Appellate District concluded, relying on Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.App.4th 990, that a 1915 subdivision map did not meet the grandfather test for prior subdivisions found in Government Code section 66499.30.
Continue Reading Revisiting History Part II: When is a Recorded 1909 Map Not a Subdivision Map?

By Cori Badgley

Sixells, LLC v. Cannery Business Park (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 648 reminds buyers and sellers that when entering into a purchase agreement whereby the property must be subdivided, the Subdivision Map Act requires that a parcel map be filed prior to contracting for the sale or the sale must be expressly conditioned upon the approval and filing of a final map. The purchase and sale agreement between Sixells and Cannery Business Park failed to meet these requirements and was therefore void.
Continue Reading Using the Subdivision Map Act to Void an Unwanted Transaction

By Glen Hansen

In Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. City of Riverside (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 743, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District addressed some of procedural traps that can befall unwary litigants who seek to bring CEQA challenges to local land use decisions including subdivision approval.
Continue Reading CEQA Practioners Beware: Your Petition Challenging Approval Of A Subdivision Under CEQA May Be Summarily Dismissed If You Don’t Comply With The Subdivision Map Act

By Leslie Walker and Nathan Jones

The following case exemplifies that a developer cannot instigate litigation attacking a proposed ordinance until a municipal government has passed the ordinance in question. The matter of Stonehouse Homes, LLC. v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, more broadly holds that to maintain a declaratory relief action, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a present conflict in addition to showing the existence of tangible injury.
Continue Reading Putting The Cart Before the Horse – Developer Cannot Pursue Declaratory Judgment Before City Council Passes Final Housing Ordinance

By William W. Abbott and Janell M. Bogue

The 2003 California Supreme Court decision of Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990 left unanswered the status of pre-1929 subdivision maps. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (July 29, 2008) 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1160 has now tackled one aspect of this issue in the context of a 1915 subdivision map.
Continue Reading Revisiting History: When is a Recorded 1915 Map Not a Subdivision Map?

By Leslie Z. Walker and William W. Abbott

The California Legislature borrowed a trick from California’s last economic downturn to assist struggling homebuilders. On July 15, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 1185 (Chapter 124, Statutes 2008), which, similar to previous legislation passed in the mid 1990’s (Gov. Code, §§ 66452.11 and 66452.13) extends the life of approved tentative subdivision maps. Continue Reading Senate Bill 1185: Legislature Puts Time on the Side of Tentative Subdivision and Parcel Maps, But Drafting Error May Trigger Follow-Up Legislation

By William W. Abbott

The Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”) contains a process for re-subdividing all or a part of an existing subdivision. When that occurs, public easements shown on the prior map are extinguished unless incorporated into the new map. (Gov. Code, § 66499.20 ½.) This sounds like a simple enough concept, but in reality, there is nothing truly simple whenever the facts involve dirt, the SMA and easements. This is illustrated by the recent case of Christian v. Flora (June 30, 2008) 2008 Cal.App.Lexis 959.
Continue Reading Old Maps, Re-Subdivision Maps, and Relocated Easements

By William W. Abbott

A common scenario in California counties involves the concurrent recording of a subdivision or parcel map, coupled with the subdivider’s offer of dedication of a road easement to the County. Frequently, the offer to dedicate goes unaccepted by the County. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”), this offer remains open and can be accepted by the Board of Supervisors at a later date. Government Code section 66477.2. Official action is not always required for the public to gain rights of use. Roads can also be informally dedicated to the public by public use, the question being, how much public use is required?
Continue Reading Offers of Dedication and Public Acceptance; How Much is Enough and Reconciliation of Common Law Revocation with Express Provisions of the Subdivision Map Act

By Cori M. Badgley and Kate J. Hart

In an attempt to invalidate or, at a minimum, get damages for the California Coastal Commission’s (“Commission”) denial of a coastal development permit, Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. (“Pratt”) brought suit against the Commission, claiming that the Commission’s decision violated Pratt’s vested right to develop its property and, in the alternative, if the decision was valid, the Commission committed a regulatory taking by denying the coastal development permit. In Charles A. Pratt Construction Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District upheld the Commission’s denial of the permit and dismissed Pratt’s regulatory takings claim for lack of ripeness.
Continue Reading The Development Blues: Property Lies Undeveloped for 30 Years and Counting